All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Violations of 1RR should be made to the edit warring noticeboards.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The claim "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law" is not substantiated by the reference
The reference says: "It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal." This is DIFFERENT than saying categorically that: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law".
Please change the phrasing to the original version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your input 22.214.171.124. A nicer way to ask for additional input would be to see the discussion linked by Sean and then ask you to feel free to continue the discussion. The discussion did not lead to a solution that was perfetct and it did not reach "consensus" that was very much over the majority. But it was better than nothing. If you have more to add go ahead and start it up again. More discussion and tweaks should not hurt anyone's feelings (but it will).Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I support the suggested change. Since the BBC (which is also widely considered biased against Israel, even by BBC's own investigation of the matter) is less categorical than the phrasing of the entry, I would suggest to change it accordingly to: "It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
And what about the literally hundreds of sources that say the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law? Or ones that just flat out say that they are illegal under international law, no mealy mouthed international community "considering" it so (like this one, or most of the ones listed in Sean's compilation of sources). There are literally thousands of sources that either support this sentence or go even further than this sentence does. nableezy - 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As Cptnono writes above, this isn't the correct place to discuss changing the consensus wording which was agreed in the discussion linked to above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
For interest, I'm planning to continue expanding that compilation of sources when I think of a suitable place for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The article does not specify whether former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would have approved of the city being named after him. There should be a section discussing whether he would have approved of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you can find an RS, then maybe it might be worthy of a discussion. In any case, the renaming of the city that went nowhere is just some blurb in history and nothing more, bordering on NN. --Shuki (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Weve dealt with this nonsense in the past, but Ariel isnt in Israel. So it isnt an Israeli city. Tel Aviv, Haifa, Nazareth, those are Israeli cities. This is an Israeli settlement. nableezy - 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"Weve [sic] dealt with this nonsense in the past"—exactly. But the conclusion was the opposite of what you say. The logic is very simple: it's a city (this is not disputed), and it's Israeli (you say yourself it's an Israeli settlement). Therefore it's also an Israeli city. QED. —Ynhockey(Talk) 09:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Dlv999 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The Israeli government considers it a city, but others do not. If you introduce yourself as Joe, but I call you Bill, that doesn't change the fact that your name is Joe. Ariel is considered a City to Israelis and officially recognized by the government, just as much as opposing groups call it a Settlement. And I think for the sake of truth, people should know both points of view. You can't stifle the conversation, because you don't like it. Both points are valid and that's that.SimplesC (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Yn, absolutely not. There has never been a consensus that you can call this an Israeli city. And you are well aware of what OR means, please stop engaging in it. It might be a city of Israelis, but it is not an Israeli city. Please do not distort the record. There is a reason this article has not said it is an Israeli city for some years now, and it isnt because the conclusion is as you claim. QED indeed. nableezy - 14:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
For nearly six months it said "an Israeli settlement and a city in the West Bank", written by... nableezy. Before that, it simply said "an Israeli settlement city in the West Bank" (November 2011–August 2012). And before that, it said "an Israeli settlement and a city in the West Bank" (January 2010–November 2011). And before that I have no interest in going. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 16:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem a city. I do have a problem with [an] Israeli city. nableezy - 16:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)